Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26476869›Full record

Trial reportJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2015

Using a brain-machine interface to control a hybrid upper limb exoskeleton during rehabilitation of patients with neurological conditions.

Enrique Hortal, Daniel Planelles, Francisco Resquin, José M Climent, José M Azorín, José L Pons

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. EEG-based sensorimotor neurofeedback for motor neurorehabilitation in children and adults: A scoping review.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Enrique HortalBrain-Machine Interface Systems Lab, Miguel Hernández University of Elche, Av. de la Universidad, S/N, Elche, 03202, Spain. ehortal@umh.es.
Daniel PlanellesBrain-Machine Interface Systems Lab, Miguel Hernández University of Elche, Av. de la Universidad, S/N, Elche, 03202, Spain. dplanelles@umh.es.
Francisco ResquinRehabilitation Group, Cajal Institute, Spanish National Research Council, Madrid, Spain. franresquin@gmail.com.
José M ClimentDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Hospital General Universitario de Alicante, Alicante, Spain. jclimentba@gmail.com.
José M AzorínBrain-Machine Interface Systems Lab, Miguel Hernández University of Elche, Av. de la Universidad, S/N, Elche, 03202, Spain. jm.azorin@umh.es.
José L PonsRehabilitation Group, Cajal Institute, Spanish National Research Council, Madrid, Spain. jose.pons@csic.es.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs a consequence of the increase of cerebro-vascular accidents, the number of people suffering from motor disabilities is raising. Exoskeletons, Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) devices and Brain-Machine Interfaces (BMIs) could be combined for rehabilitation purposes in order to improve therapy outcomes.

methodsIn this work, a system based on a hybrid upper limb exoskeleton is used for neurological rehabilitation. Reaching movements are supported by the passive exoskeleton ArmeoSpring and FES. The movement execution is triggered by an EEG-based BMI. The BMI uses two different methods to interact with the exoskeleton from the user's brain activity. The first method relies on motor imagery tasks classification, whilst the second one is based on movement intention detection.

resultsThree healthy users and five patients with neurological conditions participated in the experiments to verify the usability of the system. Using the BMI based on motor imagery, healthy volunteers obtained an average accuracy of 82.9 ± 14.5 %, and patients obtained an accuracy of 65.3 ± 9.0 %, with a low False Positives rate (FP) (19.2 ± 10.4 % and 15.0 ± 8.4 %, respectively). On the other hand, by using the BMI based on detecting the arm movement intention, the average accuracy was 76.7 ± 13.2 % for healthy users and 71.6 ± 15.8 % for patients, with 28.7 ± 19.9 % and 21.2 ± 13.3 % of FP rate (healthy users and patients, respectively).

conclusionsThe accuracy of the results shows that the combined use of a hybrid upper limb exoskeleton and a BMI could be used for rehabilitation therapies. The advantage of this system is that the user is an active part of the rehabilitation procedure. The next step will be to verify what are the clinical benefits for the patients using this new rehabilitation procedure.

Indexed as

Brain-Computer InterfacesExoskeleton DeviceFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMovementNervous System DiseasesUpper Extremity

Identifiers

PMID26476869
PMCPMC4609472

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.